For anyone who wants to see a preview of Sabu's entrapment of anonymous members, one of his chat logs were leaked:<p><a href="http://cryptome.org/2012/09/sanguinarious-sabu.htm" rel="nofollow">http://cryptome.org/2012/09/sanguinarious-sabu.htm</a><p>> Why is an informant going around throwing out a location to a claimed cache of classified documents concerning SCADA systems? So this is like a textbook attempt at entrapment, its akin to giving someone a key to a door but telling them its legal to open it with, someone being an informant, to take them down after. It also does not appear the FBI gives not one fuck about the security of critical infrastructure as long as it entraps another kid. Nothing at all wrong here is there? Full transcript: <a href="http://cryptome.org/2014/05/sabu-m45t3rs4d0w8-2012-0330-0524.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://cryptome.org/2014/05/sabu-m45t3rs4d0w8-2012-0330-0524...</a><p>Perfect example of the FBI looking for easy arrests using morally-vague methods of entrapment, instead of doing the hard work and stopping real criminal conspiracies. This is a technique they perfected in domestic terrorism cases where they find dumb criminals with no skill, financing, or strong motivation, then give them all of the resources and information they need to do conduct a real scheme. While holding their hand along the way.<p>Makes great headlines when they arrest someone "domestic terrorist caught by FBI!" but hardly a good use of resources when they keep missing <i>real</i> terrorist attacks.<p>Bruce Schneier nailed it in 2007: <a href="https://www.schneier.com/essay-174.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.schneier.com/essay-174.html</a>. None of the 'foiled plots' were ever a real threat until the FBI showed up. People could argue these people should be in jail anyway but they are hardly worth the skill and resources of the most advanced investigators in the country.
Given the conversations here[1][2] on how PR firms plant articles all the time, I've been thinking a lot about who benefits from each article I read in the NYT.<p>This one seems like a very obvious benefit for the FBI. The government wants it well known that "look, if you really cooperate we'll totally definitely let you go later." Of course, all the cases where the defendant cooperated and still went to jail don't make the media.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html</a>
[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2532759#up_2532885" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2532759#up_2532885</a>
[3] There are others, too lazy to list.
Remember guys... this ("rolling" captured suspects to unwind a large criminal network) <i>is</i> the "good old-fashioned police work" you all say that the NSA should be doing instead of using surveillance.
The article tries to frame him like a noble hacker who turned to the good side but in fact he remains a backstabbing snitch. Does anyone here have respect for what he did?